Bombay High Court

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (MSRTC)versusSMT. JANHAVI JEEVANKUMAR @ JEEVAN GURAO AND ORS.

Decided: 17 January 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: R M JOSHI

Holding

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the tribunal’s finding of the bus driver’s negligence, the income assessment, and the awarded interest.

Summary

The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) appealed against a Motor Accident Claim Petition award of Rs.68,24,000 with 9% interest, alleging the tribunal erred by attributing negligence to its bus driver and by accepting a lower income figure for the deceased pillion rider. The claimants contended that the bus driver was negligent, citing the charge‑sheet and statements indicating the bus was taking a turn and required utmost care. The tribunal held that, on a pre‑ponderance of probability, the bus driver contributed to the accident and accepted the deceased's income at Rs.35,000 per month, referencing Supreme Court precedent. The High Court affirmed the tribunal’s findings, noting that civil standards of proof differ from criminal standards and that the income assessment was reasonable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the award upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the bus driver of MSRTC was negligent in causing the accident.
Whether the claimants must prove negligence on a pre‑ponderance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the income of the deceased should be assessed at Rs.35,000 per month.
Whether the interest rate of 9% per annum awarded is appropriate.
Whether composite negligence permits the claimants to recover compensation solely from MSRTC.

Legislation cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Subjects

Motor accident claim
Negligence
Composite negligence
Compensation
Income assessment
Interest award
Civil appellate jurisdiction
Motor Vehicles Act

Judgment

50 FA 1654-24-C--.DOC

Priya Soparkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FIRST APPEAL NO.1654 OF 2024

Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road …Appellant
Transport Corporation.
Versus
Smt. Janhavi Jeevankumar @ Jeevan Gurao and …Respondents
ors.

Mr. Sumedh Gaikwad with Mr. Manjeet Lotankar and Mr. D. D.
Rananaware, for the Appellant.
Mr. Uday B. Nighot, for the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Amol Gatne, for the Respondent No.4.

CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 17th JANUARY, 2026.
PC:-

1. By consent of both sides, heard finally at the stage of
admission.

2. This Appeal is filed by the Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation (MSRTC) which takes exception to the judgment and
award dated 21st November, 2023 passed in Motor Accident Claim
Petition (MACP) No.285 of 20189, whereby the claim was allowed
by granting compensation of Rs.68,24,000/- with interest at the
rate of 9% per annum.

Digitally
signed by
PRIYA
PRIYA RAJESH
SOPARKAR
Page 1 of 7
RAJESH
SOPARKAR Date: th
2026.01.20
16:10:48
17 January, 2026.
+0530
50 FA 1654-24-C--.DOC

3. It is the case of the Claimants before the Tribunal that on
25th April, 2016, an accident occurred in which deceased was a
pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-03-BF-8549
died. It is alleged that the accident was caused on account of the
negligent driving of the bus by its driver bearing registration
No.MH-20-BL-2427 owned by MSRTC. Claimants also raised other
submissions with regard to the occupation and income of the
deceased and compensation to the extent of Rs.70 lakhs came to
be claimed. Whereas, MSRTC filed Written Statement denying the
contentions and averments of the Claimants, wherein it is
specifically claimed that there is no negligence on the part of the
driver of the bus in the occurrence of the accident and the accident
took place solely due to the negligent driving of motorcycle by its
rider. The learned Tribunal accepted the case of the Claimants and
passed impugned judgment and award. Hence, this Appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant-MSRTC submits that the
Tribunal has failed to take into consideration evidence on record
which indicates occurrence of the accident solely due to the
negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. In this regard, he further
argued that the though the accident has occurred on 25 th April,
2016, the First Information Report came to be registered on 4 th
May, 2016. Thus, according to him possibility of false implication
of the bus is not ruled out. On the point of income of the deceased,
it is submitted that though the Claimants have placed on record
evidence indicating his previous employment and income,
however, there is no evidence led before the Tribunal showing
income earned by the deceased from the business which was
allegedly conducted by him. It is his submission that the Tribunal

Page 2 of 7
th
17 January, 2026.
50 FA 1654-24-C--.DOC

has erred in accepting the income of the deceased at the rate of
Rs.35,000/- per month. So also, granted higher rate of interest. On
these among other submissions, setting aside of the impugned
judgment and award is sought.

5. The learned counsel for the Claimants submits that in case of
a composite negligence, it is open for the Claimants to seek
compensation from either of the joint tort feasures. In order to
prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, according
to him, the Claimants have placed reliance on charge-sheet, which
indicate so. He drew attention of the Court to the statement of the
driver of the motorcycle recorded on the date of accident itself,
indicating that the spot at which the accident had occurred, the
offending bus was taking a turn and in such case, it was necessary
for the driver to take utmost care. It is his submission that having
regard to the observations made by the Trial Court in in the
criminal proceeding also, it cannot be said that the bus was not
involved, nor any negligence is there in the occurrence of the
accident on the part of its driver.

6. Learned counsel for the Claimants that the Tribunal has
committed no error in accepting the income of the deceased at the
rate of Rs.35,000/- per month in view of the fact that the deceased
was highly qualified and was earlier employed earning not less
than Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- per month. It is his submission by
relying upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
S. Vasanthi and anr. Vs. Adhiparasakthi Engineering College and
anr. reported in (2022)15 Supreme Court Cases 316 , that

Page 3 of 7
th
17 January, 2026.
50 FA 1654-24-C--.DOC

acceptance of the income of the deceased is not unjust to cause
interference therein.

7. Though it is sought to be argued on behalf of the counsel for
the MSRTC that there is delay in lodging of the First Information
Report, the police papers indicate that the statement of the rider of
the motorcycle was recorded on the same day on which the
accident occurred. In such circumstances, merely because police
belatedly registered crime, it does not become a ground for
discarding the case of the Claimants.

8. It is contended that the driver of the bus was not responsible
for the occurrence of the accident and support the said submission.
The driver was examined before the Tribunal. It is settled position
of law that the Claimants are required to prove the negligence on
the part of the driver of the offending vehicle on preponderance of
probability and no strict proof is required to be given, as
contemplated in a criminal proceeding. It is further settled position
of law that this issue can be decided on the basis of charge-sheet
and the police papers. The Claimant No.1 though has not
witnessed the occurrence of the accident, he relied upon the
charge-sheet, which includes statement of the rider of the
motorcycle. The said statement indicates that at the place of the
accident, the bus was taking a turn for proceeding towards the
express way. In such circumstances, it was absolutely necessary for
the driver of the bus to take atmost care to ensure that no accident
occurs. Though the driver before the Tribunal states about he
driving the bus at the speed of 10 to 20 kilometers per hour, that
itself will not be sufficient to hold that there was no negligence on

Page 4 of 7
th
17 January, 2026.
50 FA 1654-24-C--.DOC

the part of the driver of the bus in occurrence of the accident.
Pertinently driver does not state in his evidence on oath that he
was vigilant and ensured while taking turn of bus, which is a big
vehicle, that bus does not came into contact with other vehicle.
Once it is held that the driver of the bus is also responsible for the
accident, whereas it is held that the driver of the bus is also
responsible for the accident. It becomes immaterial to the extent of
which he can be held so responsible.

9. The learned Tribunal by accepting the evidence on record in
the form of charge-sheet, recorded the finding with regard to the
negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Apart from this,
undeniably, charge-sheet was filed. Charge-sheet was filed against
the driver who never challenged the same charge-sheet. Even
though the driver of the bus is acquitted from the criminal case, by
that itself, it cannot be said that he was not negligent in any
manner in causing of the accident, because the degree of proof in a
criminal trial is beyond doubt, whereas in proceeding her claim
under Motor Vehicles Act, such proof is contemplated on
probability.

10. Having regard to this evidence on record and in view of the
fact that at the most present case could be of composite
negligence, it was open for Claimants to seek compensation from
MSRTC alone. Considering these facts, this Court finds no reason
or justification to cause interference in the findings recorded by the
Tribunal in this regard.

11. In so far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the
Claimants have led evidence indicating the educational

Page 5 of 7
th
17 January, 2026.
50 FA 1654-24-C--.DOC

qualifications of the deceased. By examining the previous
employer, it is brought on record that deceased was working as
Windows Server Analyst and was drawing salary of Rs.50,000/- to
Rs.60,000/- per month. No doubt, the deceased has resigned from
the employment and started his own business, but it is necessary to
record that the deceased was having adequate qualification and
when a person while entering into a business leaves the job, it is
expected that he would earn in proportion if not more to the
income from employment. In any case, the Tribunal has not
accepted the income of the deceased at the rate of which he was
earning salary, and the same is accepted at the rate of Rs.35,000/-
per month.

12. This Court finds substance in the contention of learned
counsel for the Claimants that in the facts of the case, so also in
view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of S.
Vasanthi (supra), the order passed by the Tribunal accepting
income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.35,000/- per month,
deserves no interference.

13. As far as interest awarded by the Tribunal on the amount of
compensation is concerned, unless the said order is perverse in
nature, no interference is required there.

14. As a result of above discussion, I pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) First Appeal stands dismissed.
(ii) The Claimants are permitted to withdraw the
deposited amount alongwith accrued interest thereon.

Page 6 of 7
th
17 January, 2026.
50 FA 1654-24-C--.DOC

(iii) The statutory amount be transmitted to the
Tribunal alongwith accrued interest thereon. The
parties are at liberty to withdraw it as per Rule.
(iv) Record and proceedings be sent back to the
Tribunal.

15. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, pending Applications,
if any, stand disposed of.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{

Page 7 of 7
th
17 January, 2026.

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…